Charles S. Barker Express Golf, Inc. v. Golf U.S.A., Inc.

grams argues within the time frame of of only occurred crack cocaine. Hines not that in drug conspiracy assigning district court erred him a charged but was itself a adjustment upward two-level for his role as a conspiracy. step in that manager supervisor or under United States jury could have convicted the 3Bl.l(c) (1997) § Sentencing Guidelines and based on a individual defendants either direct failing in grant a two level downward abetting theory or aiding under a Pink and adjustment being participant for a minor un- theory liability vicarious erton of for cocon 3B1.2(b). § der U.S.S.G. Wilson likewise ar- Cleveland, spirators. Murphy, Davis and gues declining that in the district court erred personally have been could each convicted of adjustment grant him a downward for abetting carrying in aiding the use or of and being participant. a minor These are all Murphy turns the firearm. took issues, persuaded factual we are not and using and Wilson the firearm with Howard findings clearly district court’s were erro- sales, during drugs helped keep he also neous. view hidden from between sales. firearm Murphy argues district court helped carrying Davis in and Cleveland him assigning double level counted two by meeting Howard at the bus sta firearm upward being adjustment for man- Gilliam’s taking him to the Inn. tion Red Roof and ager supervisor already he was when con- using victed of minor to assist in a con- contrast, there no evidence was spiracy Murphy to distribute crack. also aided personally Hines and abetted granted contends have that the court should carrying of firearm at either the use or adjustment acceptance him a downward however, Hines, present was at least issue. 3E1.1, § responsibility under U.S.S.G as several of the co- when threatened Jarrett departure well as under a downward a different firearm conspirators with Finally, argues U.S.S.G. 5K2.0. Cleveland missing drugs. At that effort to recover incorrectly that the concluded district point, co-conspirators that his Hines knew authority that it his lacked the consider and could possessed or more firearms one departures motions under for downward reasonably foreseen that firearms would have 5K2.0, have §§ U.S.S.G. 5K2.12. We careful- during and in carried furtherance be used or ly arguments appellants’ and reviewed conspiracy. scope Given and drug of the record con- portions the relevant and conspiracy, it fore was likewise nature of are merit. arguments clude that without co-conspirators assist his would seeable that result, carrying As a using and firearms. guilty found Hines jury could have liability abetting under vicarious aiding and Accordingly,

theory. we conclude Murphy, sufficient convict evidence was BARKER; Express Charles S. Cleveland, Davis, and Hines of Count IV. Golf, Inc., Appellants, IX. INC., U.S.A., Appellee. GOLF Davis, exception Appellants, with 97-4243. No. concerning their arguments numerous make Jarrett, Cleveland, Murphy sentences. Appeals, United States disparity unconstitutional the challenge as Eighth Circuit. in- assigned offenses levels base offense May 1998. Submitted compared to of- cocaine as volving crack Aug. Decided powder involving equal quantity fenses Rehearing Suggestion for rejected Rehearing argument has This been cocaine. 29, 1998.* Sept. En Banc Denied cases. numerous dispute the Hines, Murphy Cleveland con- finding factual

district court’s grams

spiracy between involved

* grant suggestion. Judge McMillian would ¶ 18.1, A at 29-30. Agreement

Franchise included, which provision was choice-of-law “shall that the franchise specified in accordance governed and construed be Oklahoma,” Id. laws of the State with the ¶ 20.1,-at- agreement also contained The Missouri, Louis, Duree, ar- St. David M. 12-point type bold-face in Appellants. gued, for stated, acknowledge You have re- “You Missouri, Louis, Green, ar- St. Thomas J. Agreement in copy this blank ceived a brief), Winters, (Bradley on the gued A. to seek ample opportunity time to afford Appellee. counsel, pro- analyze the various legal and to ¶ 20.13, at 33. Id. visions herein.” BOWMAN, Judge, Chief Before than nine operation failed less The retail HANSEN, Judges. HEANEY, Circuit and the franchise the execution of months after thereafter, Express and agreement. Soon BOWMAN, Judge. Chief action, claiming that present Barker filed the franchisee, Golf, Inc., a and Express representations made Golf fraudulent U.S.A., owner, Barker, sued Golf its Charles operation success of the and U.S.A. about franchisor, court. fraud state signing the Barker into franchise induced federal district to The case was removed Upon to fed- agreement. removal franchise whereupon diversity grounds, Golf court on court, Court held that eral the District ground on moved to dismiss resolved arbitra- parties’ dispute must be agree- franchise in the an arbitration clause clause con- pursuant to the arbitration tion plaintiffs’ required ment agreement. We af- in the franchise tained granted the mo- The District Court1 claims. firm. appeal. tion, Barker Express and begin by determining analysis must Our In a are as follows. The facts of the case subject agreement the franchise whether 18, September agreement dated franchise (FAA), Act to the Federal Arbitration U.S.A., 1995, corporation, an Oklahoma (1994). attempt to §§ In an 1-16 U.S.C. corporation, Missouri granted Express, a arbitration, favoring national declare a using golf retail store operate a mandating Congress passed the FAA methods, name, designs, sys- Golf U.S.A.’s agreements. See of arbitration enforcement day, tem, That same marks. and service § has held 2. The Court U.S.C. Barker, of Ex- the sole shareholder Charles provi applies FAA to arbitration obligations guarantee the press, agreed enforcement, sions, thereby mandating their agreement. franchise Express under South subject to two limitations. See the follow- agreement included The franchise 1, 10-11, Keating, 465 Corp. v. U.S. land ing provision: (1984). First, 79 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. agreement part “must be of a disputes, claims and controver- Any and all or a contract ‘evi maritime contract relating to this written arising out of sies ” involving,commerce.’ dencing a transaction hereunder or Agreement, performance (quoting 9 U.S.C. hereof, Id. at 104 S.Ct. except for monies owed breach 2). Second, “may be re § Agreement and pursuant to this Golf USA 18.5, ‘grounds as exist at law or upon voked Paragraph except as described ” the revocation of contract.’ equity for by arbitration conducted be resolved shall 2). Oklahoma, The District (quoting 9 U.S.C. County, Id. State of in Oklahoma found, dispute, parties and the do not existing the latest Com- accordance with agreement involves inter that the Arbitration of the Ameri- mercial Rules of parties are located commerce. The state Association. can Arbitration Shaw, States souri. A. United 1. The Honorable Charles Judge District of Mis- for the Eastern District Missouri, Casarotto, states, Doctor’s

different Oklahoma and Assocs. contemplates the transfer of S.Ct. L.Ed.2d inventory money between states. question The then becomes one choice- however, parties dispute, do whether the apply? of-law. state’s Which laws are we arbitration clause contained the franchise Despite a choice-of-law in the fran- agreement is valid. agreement designating chise Oklahoma

Initially, we must determine whether argue Barker that Missouri law it is for the or an arbitrator to decide apply. having should No reason validity of the arbitration clause. Ex setting been advanced for aside choice-of- press and Barker claim that the arbitration provision upon parties agreed law which the mutuality obligation, clause lacks is uncon contract, reject argument in their scionable, public policy. and violates The applies.2 and conclude that Oklahoma law District held that these claims should Express and Barker claim that Golf disagree. be decided an arbitrator. We promise illusory U.S.A.’s to arbitrate is Corp. v. In Prima Paint Flood & Conklin mutuality. They therefore fails for lack of Co., 395, 403-04, Manufacturing 388 U.S. 87 argue virtually any that claim can be convert 1801, (1967), L.Ed.2d 1270 the S.Ct. 18 Su ed into a claim for to monies owed preme that a Court held claim of fraud the pursuant and, agreement the to as a as go inducement of a contract must whole result, permitted litigate .A. is Golf U.S to arbitrator, [go] “issue[s] to but which to claim, any they conceivable while must arbi ‘making’ agreement the to of arbitrate” issue, trate their To claims. resolve “we by a also should be decided court. See Houl apply as [Oklahoma law] are bound to arewe Co., 692, 31 ihan & F.3d 694-95 Offerman rulings to it from of Cir.1994). able discern (8th [Okla underlying In this Packing homa’s] courts.” v. Anchor Jackson of is for fraud in the inducement claim Cir.1993). (8th Co., 1295, 994 F.2d 1310 The contract, is entire but that not the issue with ruled on Oklahoma courts have not Rather, today. we are faced which is.sue mutuality obligation of required of whether is go to Barker claims that assert in an For the arbitration clause. reasons making agreement of the arbitration itself. below, Paint, stated believe that the Oklahoma we a court must Prima deeide Under mutuality that Court would hold to is agreement arbitrate valid. whether required. is clauses arbitration parties’ To whether decide Properties, valid, Ditto v. to is look agreement arbitrate we to RE/MAX Preferred 1000, Thomas, (Okla.Ct.App.1993), 861 1004 Perry P.2d contract law. See state 9, 2520, 483, appeals court held unenforceable an of n. 107 S.Ct. 96 493-94 (“[S]tate (1987) party that excluded one 426 whether of arbitration clause L.Ed.2d participating in selection of an arbi judicial origin, applicable from legislative is if concerning process, trator. In the the court considered govern law arose to issues argument arbitration clause validity, revocability, enforceability Ditto, mutuality obligation. of may apply lacked generally.”). We of contracts only P.2d The cited two cases agreements 861 at 1002. to state law arbitration distinguishing its from those that applies in in case to contracts the extent obligations arbi “involve-truly one-sided Cos. v. general. See Allied-Bruce Terminix 281, 834, (citing Dobson, 265, R.W. Roberts Constr. Co. 130 trate.” Id. 513 115 S.Ct. U.S. Dist., Management way, v. St. Johns River Water Put another we L.Ed.2d 630, (Fla.Ct.App.1982) Ar an arbitration 423 So.2d not invalidate Silin, 1007, Graphics Corp. v. 59 A.D.2d only to cata ápplicable arbi under state law (1977)). 738, instead, may apply 399 N.Y.S.2d 738-39 provisions; tration issue, however, is court’s consideration general contract defenses. See a state’s unpersuasive invalid. articulated of-law We find the reasons declaring dissenting opinion for the choice- (“We . as a whole reject lack consideration for a contract [the Id. pure dicta ground Doctor’s proper covers the arbitration clause. See mutuality argument] as a (2d Distajo, ... Cir. [because] at issue Assocs. v. 66 F.3d challenge the clause 1995) (“Most expressly facing rested its decision this issue have courts trial court [t]he -panel.”). consider [that at the same conclusion unfairness arrived on the Graphics Further, in Areata the decision for the entire is sufficient to ation contract clause].”) abrogat been (citing cited has since support the court the arbitration which Co., denied, Sablosky v. S. Gordon 73 eases), Edward ed cert. S.Ct. U.S. 136-37, (1996); 538 N.Y.S.2d also N.Y.2d 134 L.Ed.2d 520 see Re (1989), (1979) (Second) the New York wherein N.E.2d statement of Contracts held that mutual Appeals expressly (“If met, Court of is requirement of consideration provisions if required in arbitration ity is not requirement no ... there is additional consideration for entire ”). there exists ‘mutuality obligation.’ Finally, “[a] doc Thus, Ditto we do not read agreement. required separate consideration for trine that courts would re indicate running might clauses risk afoul mutuality obligation, in arbitration quire favoring strong arbitra [the federal sup where entire clauses Assocs., Doctor’s 66 F.3d at 453. For tion].” ported by consideration. reasons,, that, all we conclude under these law, mutuality obligation is of not Oklahoma persuaded that the Okla-' are further We long so required for arbitration clauses as separately not Supreme homa’ Court would by supported as a cons the contract whole is mutuality in arbitration clauses require parties In this do not ideration.3 the more recent decision based on Shaffer that the contend lacks (Okla.1996). In P.2d Jeffery, 915 910 v. Shaf Court, consideration. in inter fer, Supreme the Oklahoma act, rejected arbitration preting Oklahoma’s reject Express also and Bark We separability Paint doctrine that the Prima argument er’s that arbitration clause is part a severable arbitration clause is “the unconscionable, void, and unenforceable. We addition, In Id. at 916. Okla the contract.” that, the notion the contract dismiss because espoused “‘[t]he that homa has standardized, is the arbitration together, taken a contract is to be whole of Unconscionability generally should be void. every part, if give effect reason so as to to requires showing party a lacked that one a helping to inter ably practicable, each clause meaningful choice the inclusion of as to ” Hendrick pret the others.’ Pierce Couch challenged provision challenged and that the Freede, 936 Baysinger & Green v. P.2d son par other provision unreasonably favors the (Okla.1997) (quoting Stat. Ann. Okla. ty. See Coblentz v. Farm Bureau Oklahoma (West 1993)). 15, § tit. Co., (Okla.App. Ins. 915 P.2d Mut. 1995). Moreover, showing made find no indication that No such has been join Supreme similarly that the would not this case. We find clause the Oklahoma Court by holding public policy. not violate Freeman the trend decisions doés See established dissenting unpub by opinion Supreme commands relies on an the Oklahoma Court our 3. The citing opinion Appeals relying opinion Court of restraint from on or to the lished Oklahoma concluding requires because we do not know the reason for the that Oklahoma law mutu course, agreements possibility ality obligation .Of is withdrawal. one that See,Neighbors supreme agree with the that clause is did not result. thus violative. Inc., (Okla.Ct. unlikely, dissenting Hickey Dodge, opinion sug- Lynn We find it as the No. 85676 6, 1996) (withdrawn publica gests, opinion may App. Aug. tion). have been from withdrawn however, applies Neighbors,(cid:127) not be because it settled law. Our discussion in should relied opinion upon. appeals Neighbors the issue the text of the After the court of illustrates opinion settled in Oklahoma courts. The its and released the far from rendered decision value, opinion publication, parties petitioned Neighbors precedential one to lacks see 28A(k); 1.200(b)(5) Sup.Ct. Supreme certiorari. Cir. R. R. Court for On 8th (unpublished opinions Okla. 12, 1996, not be considered Oklahoma "shall November by any any precedent cited in brief an order man as court or Court denied certiorari and issued' and, court.”), presented any dating opinion publi from other material to that the be withdrawn circumstances, cation. Order 1996. This overt act these also lacks value. Nov. Sec., attempted has P.2d tion because Golf v. Prudential To the (“Ordinarily, agreements litigate of the case. (Okla.App.1993) the merits mandatory litigation ar- parties contrary, themselves to and has to bind has resisted favored.”). are bitration to dismiss persuaded the District Court in favor of plaintiffs’ lawsuit arbitration. reject Express and also Bark We Furthermore, have not Express Barker argument final that Golf U.S.A. waived er’s if any Even prejudice shown to themselves. right by filing its arbitrate with Dis grants pend- District U.S.A.’s attorney a claim for fees after the trict Court fees, attorney is not ing motion for a matter of “[A]s District Court’s dismissal. pur- prejudice Barker law, concerning scope federal doubts determining applicable poses of the rules allegation of [such of arbitrable issues as an right has whether waiver of in favor of should be resolved arbi waiver] occurred. Hosp. ...” tration. Moses H. Cone Mem’l 1, 24-25, Mercury Corp., Constr. conclusion, In that the arbitra- we believe 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 103 S.Ct. We upon “grounds exist tion is valid as party will that a its find waived law,” 2,§ and therefore hold U.S.C. “(1) knew party where of an arbitrate FAA mandates the enforcement (2) arbitration; right to acted existing incon judgment affirm arbitration clause. We (3) sistently prejudiced right; with that dismissing the com- District Court party these inconsistent acts.” the other plaint. Communications, Inc. v. Mid-Ameri Ritzel (8th Co., 966, 969 can Tel. 989 F.2d Cellular HEANEY, Judge, dissenting. Circuit Cir.1993) (citing Stifel, & Nicolaus Co. v. Cir.1991)). Freeman, (8th F.2d As respectfully preliminary dissent. Ritzel, denied the district court several matter, I rather believe that Missouri arbitration, they motion and defendants’ law, applies. “Federal dis than Oklahoma appeal pending, was appealed. While the law apply courts the choice of trict must litigate defendants continued to the those they in which sit when rules the state They in court. merits of case district diversity citizen jurisdiction is based on answers, interrogatories responded to filed Ritter, Corp. F.2d ship.” Whirlpool v. 929 production, participated in requests for and Cir.1991) (8th 1318, (citing Co. 1320 Klaxon conferences, pre-trial and and depositions Co., 487, 496, U.S. 61 v. Stentor Elec. 313 numerous and documents filed motions (1941)). 1020, review L.Ed. 1477 We S.Ct. trial. was eventual preparation for The case de novo district court’s determination six-day judgment ly trial and tried in a bench Regina apply. See Salve which state’s law against the defendants. We was entered Russell, College v. the defendants had waived their held that 1217, 113 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d “[b]y failing to right make the case in Dis- filed this the Eastern stay in requesting this simple effort Therefore, Mis- apply trict Missouri. by proceeding and to trial on mer courts rules. Missouri souri’s choice of law (empha court.” Id. at 970 in the district its (Second) added). of Conflicts follow Restatement In this has not Golf U.S.A. sis agreements.4 inconsistently analyzing contractual right its to arbitra- when acted with agreement by explicit provision in provides: their of the 4. Section 187 Restatement issue, ... directed unless to the (1) by parties law of the chosen The state rights govern and their contractual duties (b) application law of state applied particular the chosen if the issue is one will be contrary policy to a parties by would be fundamental could have resolved which materially greater inter- provision a state has explicit their directed which state the determina- est than the chosen to that issue. ... (2) by parties particular issue and which tion of the law of the chosen state applicable law in rights would the state of the govern and be their contractual duties of law particular of an effective choice applied, is absence will be even if the issue parties. parties could not have resolved one which explicitly Supreme Court has High- The Missouri Corp v. Missouri Fruin-Colnon See Comm’n, designed to legislative scheme approved 736 S.W.2d Transp. way & (Mo.1987). greater has invali Because Missouri franchisees and has protect Missouri contacts, govern the case ab- would its law clause where a forum-selection dated parties. of law the a valid choice sent unfairly prej was “unreasonable” clause 187(l)(b). (Second) Conflicts Restatement High Sales the franchisee. See udiced Life record, I also Having carefully reviewed the Corp., 823 S.W.2d v. Brown-Forman Co. materially greater Missouri has find that (Mo.1992). our AM- agreeing with forum-selection in the effect of the interest interpreting Missouri and in BAC decision Finally, Id. to deter- than Oklahoma. clause High law, stated: franchise the court Life choice of law whether the mine ... Appeals Eighth Court of “The Circuit valid, ask whether the arbitration we must strong public policy reflected recognized the violates a fundamental clause at issue protecting fran Chapter generally” in it does. Id. conclude of Missouri. very legisla “the fact that chisees and Magneto In Electrical & Service Co. that it paternalistic in nature indicates tion is Corp., International 941 F.2d 660 AMBAC (citing at 498 policy.” Id. is a fundamental (8th Cir.1991), our court reviewed Missouri (Second) § 187 of Conflicts Restatement concerning agreements statutes holdings of our g). with comment Consistent Legislature concluded that “the Missouri Court, I Supreme court and the Missouri legislative presumption that fran- created a clause be invalidate the arbitration would bargaining position chisees are an inferior unreasonable under Missouri law is cause enti- respect to franchisors and thus are with unfairly prejudices Express. protection oppressive from the use of tled to applies, superiority.” assuming n. 3. law franchisor’s Id. at 663 Even that Oklahoma majority is correct that “we Although issue violates not invalidate an arbitration The Oklahoma Constitution. “ only applicable law to arbi- under state party may not unilater has held that ‘[o]ne 791, I provisions[,]” ante at would tration jury ally other than a decide to have someone agreement, this arbitration be- invalidate thereby destroy determine issues ” protec- single specific out cause rather than Massey v. jury to a trial.’ other’s agreements afforded to arbitration tions (Okla. Group, P.2d Farmers Ins. legislative the Missouri under Missouri 1992) Exch., Molodyh Truck (quoting Ins. designed regulate at issue “is scheme (1987)). 744 P.2d 304 Or. advantage of those tradi- marketplace to view, my has the unilateral In Golf U.S.A tionally thought unequal bargaining to have other than a right to decide to have someone may power as those who fall victim to as well thereby jury the issues and de- determine In practices.” Id. at 663. unfair business jury stroy Express’s right to a trial. While provision that my judgment, the arbitration anything can sue in court for Golf U.S.A. court, re- to sue but allows Golf U.S.A. money damages, Express may nev- involving pos- quires Express to arbitrate without the jury must trial, demand a trial and submit receiving jury er sibility a violates of ever My position arbitration.5 policy under law. a fundamental Missouri A-55). (J.A. quoted (Second) provision Because the at Conflicts 187 Restatement broad, if Golf U.S.A. determined that above is so closely agree- 5. Once one examines goodwill Express "materially impair[ed] as- ment, why the arbi- it is not hard to understand name,” U.S.A. with the Golf USA sociated truly one-sided. Clause tration is so twenty- terminate the within could example, agreement, for 16.4.2 of the franchise Express and sue in court for four hours notice provides terminate the that Golf U.S.A. alleged breach. monies owed as a result agreement: hand, where On the other as in this [Express] fail to cure a default hereun- If You der, materially their materially impairs that Golf U.S.A. breached claims where such default name, goodwill agreement, Express Golf USA to arbi- associated with the is forced to submit logo; but after You have service mark or tration. given been notice to cure said default written and have failed to do so after 24 hours. hearing diversity of our role when law is bolstered hension violates Oklahoma cases. unpublished opinion6 of the Oklahoma by an explicitly That court stat Appeals.

Court jury special guarantee of “Because of the

ed: constitution, granted by our hold we

trials provision purporting to a contractual right to elect alternative

grant a unilateral procedures is not enforce dispute resolution Porsch; SCHUVER; Terry Luke demanding jury against party able Moore, Appellants, Burl Lynn Hickey Neighbors trial.” v. v. Inc., (Okla.Ct.App. Dodge, at 9 No. 85.676 COMPANY; MIDAMERICAN ENERGY A119) (J.A. 6, 1996) A-111, Aug. (emphasis at Stowe; G. International Broth William original).7 can no There be doubt that Workers, 499; of Electrical Local erhood Neighbors holding persuasive on both Wilson, Appellees. L. William respect to point with this case.8 No. 97-2269. empowered predict are We how Appeals, United States Court of this Supreme Court would decide Oklahoma Eighth Circuit. view, compels law my matter. Oklahoma right us to find that the unilateral that Golf Submitted Dec. 1997. directly possesses in this case contra- Aug. 20, 1998. Decided for venes its constitution. It is this reason respectfully hope dissent and that our banc, Supreme court en or the United States

Court, misappre- transparent this corrects Lane, (Okla.1993), 6.Although Supreme pro Court In Cannon 867 P.2d 1235 Oklahoma rules stated; prece- "Because unpublished opinions have vide no effect, this Court 1.200(b)(5), we hold the contract before is one Sup.Ct. dential see Okla. R. insurance’ and therefore an 'with reference to any and "shall be ... cited in brief or other not Act, exception to the Uniform Arbitration court,” presented courts inter material issue of need not address the constitutional unpub preting this have found that whether contract future opinions may persuasive be value. lished used petitioner jury disputes deprives trial and See, e.g., Capital Tilton v. Cities/ABC rights under his constitutional ... violates ("Al (N.D.Okla.1995) F.Supp. n. 1 of the State Oklahoma.” Id. Constitution though Appeals' unpub ... Oklahoma Court of Although n. 7. the court did reach value, opinion[s][do] precedential not have lished least, issue, that, very at the it is clear consid- [they persuasive.”); may] see ... be also Farmers question open whether arbitration claus- ered Stark, (Okla.Ct. Group Ins. 924 P.2d jury may deprive one of the trial es ("The App.1996) trial found of the Oklahoma Constitution. This violation unpublished opinion followed ... an court.”); ... of fact, holdings Massey conjunction with Mosby, Employers Mut. Cas. v. 943 P.2d by Neighbors, clearly shows the error made (Okla.1997) (discussing Northland majority. Nance, appeals opinion unpublished court of Farmers, overruling analyzed in and while Nance Interestingly, Neighbors considered the court appeals opinion published was because court of heavily opinion, relied on so Shaffer suggested point, could on never that lower courts majority, yet the arbitration still found that opinion unpublished persuasive val use not ue). violated the Oklahoma Constitution. See clause 117.) may 85.676, (J.A. Our has also that one cite court stated Neighbors, One at A — if, although unpublished opinion why of our question value, lacking precedential it has val Neighbors publication, rather from withdrew published opinion overruling Perhaps simply on a issue and no it. the reason is ue material than 28A(k). "[o]pinions Appeals well. See 8th Cir. R. the Court of Civil would serve as agree regard, apply precedent and do not settle do not that the cases cited settled which sufficiently majority questions before of law shall not be released for address issues new O.S.1991, § publication." 30.5. us.

Case Details

Case Name: Charles S. Barker Express Golf, Inc. v. Golf U.S.A., Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Sep 29, 1998

Citation: 154 F.3d 788

Docket Number: 97-4243

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.